The Atmospheric Transport and Depositionof Mercury to the Great Lakes

Dr. Mark CohenNOAA Air Resources Laboratory

Silver Spring, Maryland

Collection of Graphics forIJC Air Quality Advisory Board

April 16, 2004

Methodology• Modeling methodology outlined in Cohen et al., 2004;

• The same 1996 meteorology was used in this new analysis, with updated emissions inventory data

• Only inventoried anthropogenic sources in the U.S. and Canada are considered

• U.S. point and area source emissions from EPA 1999 National Emissions Inventory

• Top contributing sources checked and updated using Great Lakes Regional Toxics Inventory and other sources

• Mobile source emissions estimates from 1996 NEI (no 1999 data available)

• Canadian point and area source emissions from 1995 Environment Canada inventory

• Top contributing sources updated using 2000 NPRI

MercuryEmissionsInventory

Anthropogenic Mercury Emissions from U.S. and Canadian Great Lakes States/Provinces and other States/Provinces

US_GLUS_non_GL CAN_GL

CAN_non_GL

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

U.S

. Em

issi

ons

(met

ric to

ns/y

ear)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Can

Em

issi

ons

(met

ric to

ns/y

r)

Can_Hg(p)Can_Hg(II)Can_Hg(0)US_Hg(p)US_Hg(II)US_Hg(0)

coal elec gen (GL_states)waste incin (GL_states)

other fuel (GL_states)

manuf/other (GL_states)metals (GL_states)

coal elec gen (GL_provinces)waste incin (GL_provinces)

other fuel (GL_provinces)manuf/other (GL_provinces)metals (GL_provinces)

Emissions of Ionic Mercury (RGM) from Different AnthropogenicSource Sectors in Great Lakes States and Provinces (~1999-2000)

[Total RGM emissions = 13.4 metric tons/year]

coal elec gen (GL_states)57.7%waste incin (GL_states)

21.0%

other fuel (GL_states)8.1%

manuf/other (GL_states)4.3%

metals (GL_states)0.8%

coal elec gen (GL_provinces)1.7%

waste incin (GL_provinces)2.1%

other fuel (GL_provinces)1.0%

manuf/other (GL_provinces)1.3%

metals (GL_provinces)2.1%

Emissions of Ionic Mercury (RGM) from Different AnthropogenicSource Sectors in Great Lakes States and Provinces (~1999-2000)

[Total RGM emissions = 13.4 metric tons/year]

coal elec gen (GL_states)7754waste incin (GL_states)

2827

other fuel (GL_states)1088

manuf/other (GL_states)578

metals (GL_states)109

coal elec gen (GL_provinces)222

waste incin (GL_provinces)282

other fuel (GL_provinces)130

manuf/other (GL_provinces)170

metals (GL_provinces)285

Emissions of Ionic Mercury (RGM) from Different AnthropogenicSource Sectors in Great Lakes States and Provinces (~1999-2000)

[Amounts (kg/yr) shown]

Figure 2. Estimated 1999 U.S. Atmospheric Anthropogenic Mercury Emissions

Figure 3. Estimated Speciation Profile for 1999 U.S.Atmospheric Anthropogenic Mercury Emissions

Figure 4. Estimated 2000 Canadian AtmosphericAnthropogenic Mercury Emissions

Figure 5. Geographic Distribution of Estimated Anthropogenic Mercury Emissions in the U.S. (1999) and Canada (2000)

OverallSummary of

ResultsObtainedto Date

Figure 1. Receptors Analyzed in Present Study

Figure 11. Mercury deposition at selected receptors arising from 1999 emissions from anthropogenic sources in the United States and Canada. Percentage labels are the

fraction of this deposition arising from U.S. coal-fired electricity generation facilities

62%55%

47%55%

51%42%

2%

10%

17%

51%63%

51%

34%45% 37%

42%40%

49%

53%

Lake

Erie

Lake

Mic

higa

n

Lake

Sup

erio

r

Lake

Hur

on

Lake

Ont

ario

Lk C

ham

plai

n

Lake

Tah

oe

Puge

t Sou

nd

Mes

a Ve

rde

NP

Mob

ile B

ay

Mam

mot

h C

ave

NP

Sand

y H

ook

Long

Isla

nd S

ound

Adi

rond

ack

Park

Mas

s B

ay

Aca

dia

NP

Gul

f of M

aine

Che

sape

ake

Bay

Che

s B

ay W

S

0.01

0.1

1

10

100

(ug/

m2-

year

)H

g D

epos

ition

Flu

x

Figure 12-A. Mercury deposition at selected receptors arising from 1999 emissions from anthropogenic sources in the United States and Canada. Percentage labels are the fraction of

this deposition arising from U.S. “IPM” coal-fired electricity generation facilities

57%51%

41%50%

44%39%

2%

11%

16%

49%60%

48%

34%42% 35%

39%37%

48%

51%

Lake

Erie

Lake

Mic

higa

n

Lake

Sup

erio

r

Lake

Hur

on

Lake

Ont

ario

Lk C

ham

plai

n

Lake

Tah

oe

Puge

t Sou

nd

Mes

a Ve

rde

NP

Mob

ile B

ay

Mam

mot

h C

ave

NP

Sand

y H

ook

Long

Isla

nd S

ound

Adi

rond

ack

Park

Mas

s B

ay

Aca

dia

NP

Gul

f of M

aine

Che

sape

ake

Bay

Che

s B

ay W

S

0.01

0.1

1

10

100

(ug/

m2-

year

)H

g D

epos

ition

Flu

x (1

999

base

)

Lake

Erie

Lake

Mic

higa

n

Lake

Sup

erio

r

Lake

Hur

on

Lake

Ont

ario

Lk C

ham

plai

n

Lake

Tah

oe

Puge

t Sou

nd

Mes

a Ve

rde

NP

Mob

ile B

ay

Mam

mot

h C

ave

NP

Sand

y H

ook

Long

Isla

nd S

ound

Adi

rond

ack

Park

Mas

s B

ay

Aca

dia

NP

Gul

f of M

aine

Che

sape

ake

Bay

Che

s B

ay W

S

0

5

10

15

(ug/

m2-

year

)H

g D

epos

ition

Flu

x (1

999

base

)

all other sources IPM coal-fired plants

Figure 13-A. Mercury deposition at selected receptors arising from 1999 base-case emissions from anthropogenic sources in the United States and Canada

(IPM coal fired plants are large coal-fired plants in the U.S. only)

Figure __. Hg Deposition From U.S.Coal-Fired Power Plants in 1999

Lake

Erie

Lake

Mic

higa

nLa

ke S

uper

ior

Lake

Hur

onLa

ke O

ntar

ioLk

Cha

mpl

ain

Lake

Tah

oePu

get S

ound

Mes

a Ve

rde

NP

Mob

ile B

ayM

amm

oth

Cav

e N

PSa

ndy

Hoo

kLo

ng Is

land

Sou

ndA

diro

ndac

k Pa

rkM

ass

Bay

Aca

dia

NP

Gul

f of M

aine

Che

sape

ake

Bay

Che

s B

ay W

S

0.01

0.1

1

10(g

/km

2-ye

ar)

Tota

l Hg

Dep

ositi

on F

lux

OverallSummary ofGreat Lakes

Results

Top 25 Contributors to 1999 Hg Deposition Directly to Lake Erie

Eastlake Lubrizol

Avon Lake Monroe

Keystone Homer City

Conesville NanticokeAshta ChemicalsSafety-KleenJohn E AmosMedusa CementWayne Cnty Incin.W. H. Sammis

American Ref-Fuel (Niagara) CardinalBruce MansfieldNiagara MohawkAshtabula LambtonPhilip Sporn MitchellKyger CreekClarian HealthBall Memorial

OH OH

OH MI

PA PA

OH CAN

OH CAN

WV PA MI OH NY OH PA NY OH CAN WV WV OH IN IN

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%Cumulative Fraction of Hg Deposition

0

5

10

15

20

25R

ank

coal-fired elec genother fuel combustionwaste incinerationmetallurgicalmanufacturing/other

Top 25 Contributors to 1999 Hg Deposition Directly to Lake Michigan

Pleasant PrairieJoliet 29

J.H. CampbellWaukegan

MARBLEHEAD LIME CO.Will CountyJERRITT CANYON LWD

South Oak CreekPowerton

Superior Special ServicesCLARIAN HEALTHCrawfordR.M. Schahfer Joliet 9Rockport

Marblehead Lime (South Chicago)BALL MEMORIAL FiskState LineEdgewaterVULCAN MCCOOK LIMEMonroe Power PlantMonticelloParkview Mem. Hosp.

WI IL

MI IL IL IL NV KY WI IL WI IN IL IN IL IN IL IN IL IN WI IL MI TX IN

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%Cumulative Fraction of Hg Deposition

0

5

10

15

20

25R

ank

coal-fired elec genother fuel combustionwaste incinerationmetallurgicalmanufacturing/other

Top 25 Contributors to 1999 Hg Deposition Directly to Lake Superior

JERRITT CANYON LWD

PIPELINE MININGFlin Flon SmelterMonticelloSt. Paul Sewage Incin.Pleasant PrairieJ.H. Campbell Rockport

Superior Special ServicesCLARIAN HEALTH PowertonTHUNDER BAYNEWMONT MINING CORP. Joliet 29Monroe Power PlantVULCAN MATERIALSMARBLEHEAD LIME CO.BALL MEMORIALHealth Care Incin. Safety-KleenEau Claire Incin.Olmstead Incin. Keystone Homer City

NV KY NV CAN

TX MN WI MI IN WI IN IL CAN

NV IL MI WI IL IN ND CAN WI MN PA PA

0% 20% 40% 60%Cumulative Fraction of Hg Deposition

0

5

10

15

20

25R

ank

coal-fired elec genother fuel combustionwaste incinerationmetallurgicalmanufacturing/other

Top 25 Contributors to 1999 Hg Deposition Directly to Lake Huron

MonroeJERRITT CANYON Keystone

Homer CitySafety-Kleen LWD

Wayne Cnty. Incin.ConesvilleEastlakeDan E. KarnJohn E AmosJ.H. CampbellCLARIAN HEALTH RockportBALL MEMORIALAvon LakeLAMBTON

Amer. Ref-Fuel (Niagara)Lubrizol Corp.Parkview Mem. Hosp.Big SandyNANTICOKEPhilip Sporn CardinalMedusa Cement

MI NV

PA PA CAN

KY MI OH OH MI WV MI IN IN IN OH CAN NY OH IN KY CAN WV OH PA

0% 20% 40% 60%Cumulative Fraction of Hg Deposition

0

5

10

15

20

25R

ank

coal-fired elec genother fuel combustionwaste incinerationmetallurgical

Top 25 Contributors to 1999 Hg Deposition Directly to Lake Ontario

American Ref-Fuel (Niagara) Homer City

KeystoneNiagara Falls Incin.NANTICOKE TGS

Phoenix ServicesKMS Peel Incin.Niagara MohawkC. R. Huntley Shawville Montour Dunkirk Eastlake Mt. Storm

Toronto Sewage Sludge Incin.Bruce MansfieldMedusa CementConesville CardinalUniv. of RochesterW. H. SammisJohn E AmosJERRITT CANYONDOFASCO (Hamilton)Lubrizol Corp.

NY PA

PA NY CAN

MD CAN

NY NY PA PA NY OH WV CAN PA PA OH OH NY OH WV NV CAN OH

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%Cumulative Fraction of Hg Deposition

0

5

10

15

20

25R

ank

coal-fired elec genother fuel combustionwaste incinerationmetallurgicalmanufacturing/other

Top 25 Contributors to 1999 Hg Deposition Directly to Lake Champlain

Phoenix Services Montour

Homer City Keystone

Pittsfield Incin.steel industry (Montreal region) ShawvilleHarrisburg Incin.JERRITT CANYONMontreal Incin. Mt. StormAdirondack Incin.Brunner IslandJohn E Amos

Amer. Ref-Fuel (Niagara)SES Claremont Incin.Brandon ShoresBruce MansfieldChevron Chemical Conesville CardinalMedusa Cement Eastlake Eddystone LWD

MD PA

PA PA

MA CAN

PA PA NV CAN

WV NY PA WV NY NH MD PA PA OH OH PA OH PA KY

0% 20% 40% 60%Cumulative Fraction of Hg Deposition

0

5

10

15

20

25R

ank

coal-fired elec genother fuel combustionwaste incinerationmetallurgical

Emissions sources which are among the top-25 model-estimated contributors to one or more of the Great Lakes

Note: does not include 4 metallurgical facilities outside the region

Emissions sources which are among the top-25 model-estimated contributors to one or more of the Great Lakes

US_GL

US_non

_GL

CAN_GL

CAN_non

_GL

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

U.S

. Sou

rces

(kg/

yr)

Dep

ositi

on fr

om

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Can

adia

n S

ourc

es (k

g/yr

)D

epos

ition

from

OntarioHuronSuperiorMichiganErie

Model-Estimated Mercury Deposition to the Great Lakesfrom U.S. and Canadian Anthropogenic Mercury Emissions

[Great Lakes States/Provinces vs. other States/Provinces]

Model-Estimated Mercury Deposition to Lake Superiorfrom Different Source Categories of US/Canadian

Anthropogenic Mercury Emissions Sources[Great Lakes States/Provinces vs. other States/Provinces]

GL stat

esno

n_GL s

tates

GL prov

inces

non_

GL prov

inces

0

50

100

150

from

U.S

. Sou

rces

(kg/

yr)

Dep

ositi

on to

Lk.

Sup

.

0

5

10

15

from

Can

. Sou

rces

(kg/

yr)

Dep

ositi

on to

Lk.

Sup

.

manufacturing/othermetallurgicalwaste incinerationother fuel combustioncoal electric generation

Model-Estimated Mercury Deposition to Lake Huronfrom Different Source Categories of US/Canadian

Anthropogenic Mercury Emissions Sources[Great Lakes States/Provinces vs. other States/Provinces]

GL stat

esno

n_GL s

tates

GL prov

inces

non_

GL prov

inces

0

50

100

150

200

250

from

U.S

. Sou

rces

(kg/

yr)

Dep

ositi

on to

Lk.

Hur

on

0

5

10

15

20

25

from

Can

. Sou

rces

(kg/

yr)

Dep

ositi

on to

Lk.

Hur

onmanufacturing/othermetallurgicalwaste incinerationother fuel combustioncoal electric generation

Model-Estimated Mercury Deposition to Lake Michiganfrom Different Source Categories of US/Canadian

Anthropogenic Mercury Emissions Sources[Great Lakes States/Provinces vs. other States/Provinces]

GL stat

esno

n_GL s

tates

GL prov

inces

non_

GL prov

inces

0

100

200

300

from

U.S

. Sou

rces

(kg/

yr)

Dep

ositi

on to

Lk.

Mic

higa

n

0

10

20

30

from

Can

. Sou

rces

(kg/

yr)

Dep

ositi

on to

Lk.

Mic

higa

n

manufacturing/othermetallurgicalwaste incinerationother fuel combustioncoal electric generation

Model-Estimated Mercury Deposition to Lake Eriefrom Different Source Categories of US/Canadian

Anthropogenic Mercury Emissions Sources[Great Lakes States/Provinces vs. other States/Provinces]

GL stat

esno

n_GL s

tates

GL prov

inces

non_

GL prov

inces

0

50

100

150

200

from

U.S

. Sou

rces

(kg/

yr)

Dep

ositi

on to

Lak

e E

rie

0

5

10

15

20

from

Can

. Sou

rces

(kg/

yr)

Dep

ositi

on to

Lak

e E

riemanufacturing/othermetallurgicalwaste incinerationother fuel combustioncoal electric generation

Model-Estimated Mercury Deposition to Lake Ontariofrom Different Source Categories of US/Canadian

Anthropogenic Mercury Emissions Sources[Great Lakes States/Provinces vs. other States/Provinces]

GL stat

esno

n_GL s

tates

GL prov

inces

non_

GL prov

inces

0

100

200

300

from

U.S

. Sou

rces

(kg/

yr)

Dep

ositi

on to

Lak

e O

ntar

io

0

10

20

30

from

Can

. Sou

rces

(kg/

yr)

Dep

ositi

on to

Lak

e O

ntar

io

manufacturing/othermetallurgicalwaste incinerationother fuel combustioncoal electric generation

Model-Estimated Mercury Deposition to Lake Ontariofrom Different Source Categories of US/Canadian

Anthropogenic Mercury Emissions Sources[Great Lakes States/Provinces vs. other States/Provinces]

[US SCALE = CAN SCALE]

GL stat

esno

n_GL s

tates

GL prov

inces

non_

GL prov

inces

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

from

U.S

. Sou

rces

(kg/

yr)

Dep

ositi

on to

Lak

e O

ntar

io

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

from

Can

. Sou

rces

(kg/

yr)

Dep

ositi

on to

Lak

e O

ntar

io

manufacturing/othermetallurgicalwaste incinerationother fuel combustioncoal electric generation

Additional Detailed

Results forLake Erie

Figure 30-A. Geographical Distribution of 1999 Deposition Contributions to Lake Erie

Figure 30-B. Geographical Distribution of 1999 Deposition Contributions to Lake Erie

Figure 31. Emissions and deposition contributions from different distance ranges away from Lake Erie

0 - 100100 - 200

200 - 400400 - 700

700 - 10001000 - 1500

1500 - 20002000 - 2500

> 2500

Distance Range from Lake Erie (km)

0

10

20

30

40

50

Emis

sion

s (m

etric

tons

/yea

r)

0

1

2

3

4

5

Dep

ositi

on F

lux

(ug/

m2-

year

)

Emissions Deposition Flux

AdditionalDetailed

Results forLake

Michigan

Figure 35-A. Geographical Distribution of 1999 Direct Deposition Contributions to

Lake Michigan (entire domain)

Figure 35-B. Geographical Distribution of 1999 DirectDeposition Contributions to Lake Michigan (regional view)

Figure 35-C. Geographical Distribution of 1999 DirectDeposition Contributions to Lake Michigan (more local view)

0 - 100100 - 200

200 - 400400 - 700

700 - 10001000 - 1500

1500 - 20002000 - 2500

> 2500

Distance Range from Lake Michigan (km)

0

10

20

30

40

50

Emis

sion

s (m

etric

tons

/yea

r)

0

1

2

3

4

5

Dep

ositi

on F

lux

(ug/

m2-

year

)

Emissions Deposition Flux

Figure 36. Emissions and Deposition Contributions from Different Distance Ranges Away From Lake Michigan